Assange claims that the reason he is refusing to go to Sweden to answer these sex charges is fear of Sweden extraditing him to the USA. Time for Sweden to call Assange's bluff then - if that's what it is.

The Swedish government should categorically state that they will NOT extradite him to the USA after he is tried in Sweden on these sex charges - i.e. whether or not he is found guilty.

If Assange still refuses to accept that he must faces his accusers in Sweden, then wouldn't that show the possible true situation: i.e. that he is unwilling to face trial in Sweden because he knows that there is a very good chance he would be found guilty and be facing a very lengthy prison term.

On the other hand, if Sweden refuses to give an assurance that he won't be extradited to the USA, then that would back Assange's position: i.e. he is seeking political asylum because he believes the charges in Sweden are trumped up in order to get him to Sweden so he can be extradited to the USA.

Sweden can't do this.
To categorically state that it would not extradite Assange to the US risks the possibility that the US could make a fully legal extradition request and Sweden would have to break a treaty to deny it. This would be something Sweden would be very unwilling to do, certainly not for someone like Assange, who may not be a rapist but is certainly a sleaze.

That said, as a previous comment suggested, if the US really wanted Assange, it should have just made an extradition request directly to the UK. Why bother with Sweden at all?

Such an absolute guarantee is totally possible. If Assange is in Sweden and the US asks for his extradition, the case first goes through the Swedish court system. If the courts allow the request, it goes to the Swedish and the UK governments (as he was originally extradited from the UK) and they can decide whether or not to extradite. The Economist is, quite simply, wrong. And it should correct the mistake.

Of course. Sweden is a sovereign entity and may do as it likes. Part of what it likes is a well ordered legal system by which it abides, both internally to Sweden and externally with its treaty partners.

Can it deny extradition? You bet. For example, if the courts believe that Assange may face the death penalty, he will not be extradited. There are also other limitations. For example, Sweden will not extradite for offenses which, if perpetrated in Sweden, would not call for at least 1 year of incarceration. Extradition cannot be granted for military or political offenses or if there is persecution based on religion, ethnicity, or gender. It can be denied for humanitarian reasons (ill-health, youth). It can be denied if there is no credible evidence.

The point is that if the US presents an extradition request to Sweden that fulfills Sweden's requirements, it will comply. That is the law. You need some pretty serious arguments to get the law changed for Assange.

Now depending on what's in that potential request, Assange can make a number of arguments. That this is political persecution, that his actions would not be illegal in Sweden, that no matter what the US promises, he many face the death penalty. A court of law will decide the validity of these arguments.

Why bother with Sweden? Because Assange's conviction as a rapist would further discredit him. Also, sending him to Sweden would eliminate the need for the British government (America's greatest ally) from the domestic unpopularity of extraditing him directly to the US. Sweden has no such qualms.

Of course, the Swedish government is a law making body. The article you linked states that the government can set the conditions of the law and then the Supreme Court decides within those conditions. Once the ruling is made, the government cannot overrule the Supreme Court. How is this different from any country?
The point is that there are already a set of well considered conditions that exist for extradition. As I said, you need some pretty strong arguments to get the law changed for Assange. Not because the government can't do it, but because they would show some actual restraint. Do we really want to add to the list of general conditions I outlined above "and if you are named Julian Assange you will not be extradited"? No! That is creating special laws for individuals. It is the antithesis of a well run legal system.
If Assange has a good argument for a new general condition that should be attached to the law, he is welcome to suggest it, but my guess is that he will have to work with the current set.

It seems the UK neither believes in diplomatic asylum nor in the privacy of the home. There is no reason whatever no invade a private house unless there is a court order of seek and find and this is not possible in foreign territory which an Embassy is. This outrageous threat puts light on the fact that Assange is chased for reasons beyond unprotected sex with a Swedish woman and forced sex with a Cuban one. It is a shame The Economist has joined the campaign to smear any Governments supporting Assange.

Diplomatic asylum is not recognized as an international law (try reading the article next time before commenting).

The UK government has the right to enter a private home, however the embassy isn't a private home.

The UK government retains the right to enter an embassy. Ecuador would have known about this law-ignorance isn't an excuse.

To then extrapolate your misinformation with a false claim is so typical Assange. So far the only person who has broken the law in this saga is Assange. Maybe he is indeed innocent in Sweden, but he has clearly broken the law in the UK. For over 2 months the UK has not entered the embassy, all it has done is inform the Ecuadorian government of a UK law. Correa and Assange can call names and claim whatever they want, but the facts are clear.

Cloudwarrior seems to disregard article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention which states:
“1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.”

The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland signed this 11 December 1961 and ratified it on 1st September 1964. All UN member countries ratified this Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This set the ground rules for diplomacy during the Cold War and remains in place
Perhaps Cloudwarrior should go beyond the misquote in Wikipedia. No. I am not Assange and do not Know Mr Assange. I reflect the spirit of Jean Charles de Menezes and all those chased for all the wrong reasons. Informing public opinion is no reason for this manhunt. Public opinion is not the enemy. Don’t kill the messenger.

Wikipedia? Who has been sourcing information from wikipedia.... good try mate.

I am fully aware of the 1961 Convention. Especially Article 41. The UK does have the right to enter the embassy by the simple fact of revoking Ecuador's diplomatic right to an embassy under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

This would not breach the Convention as such revocation would not revoke the protections to any diplomats, staff, families, assets or information.

It would only mean that the UK would have to guarantee safe passage and conduct to the above out of the UK. However it would not extend to Assange who is not protected by the Convention.

Jean Charles de Menezes? You are really comparing Assange to de Menezes. De Menezes was a tragic mistake and accident.

Assange has been accused of rape and will do anything to avoid facing such accusations in Sweden.

But, Archie, the UK doesn't recognise diplomatic asylum, nor does the rest of Europe. Also, certain UK government agencies do not require a court order to enter a private home (e.g. HMRC), not that that is relavent in this case. Finally, and quite famously, the UK has no privacy laws.... Whether you support Assange or not is beside the point, these are simple facts.

Here is some international law to chew on. It should be up to the ICJ in this case to decide whether Assange is entitled to free passage under article 33(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion"

Here is some international law to chew on. It should be up to the ICJ in this case to decide whether Assange is entitled to free passage under article 33(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion"

Nothing to chew on mate. If Ecuador wants to take his case to the ICJ then it is totally free to do so.

However I would love to hear the legal argument that Assange is in danger of his life or freedom in the UK or Sweden based on his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion.

Last time I checked, the laws he may have broken in Sweden do not fall under any of these categories or any part of that Convention. The Convention does not exist to protect people from being punished for breaking the law.

Assange's continual claim of impending extradition to the US based on nothing but his paranoia would be an interesting defence to protect him from facing Swedish authorities for potential sexual malfeasance.

However, considering he is on Ecuadorian soil at this moment, the UK is not the "Contracting State"

The ICJ cannot command the UK to grant Assange passage through their territory.

The whole case against Assange just smells fishy. Right after he leaks the largest bundle of diplomatic cables ever, and he becomes a public figure, some sexual misconduct allegations appear against him. Swedish police, after changing their mind several times, decide to ask for extradition. One of the alleged victims even claimed pressure on her to keep her accusation.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I'd say they're preparing a big pot of duck stew there in Washington.

How so Archie ? If the US wanted him they would have had whisked him away months ago. Mr. Assange got himself into his own mess by his own actions--time for him to fess up and I doubt the US really cares about him- Wikileaks actually showed the State Department to be writing accurate reports. Once cleared Mr. Assange should wikileak Russian, Chinese and North Korean cables--then the intelligence operations of these powers will ensure he has a nice plutonium milkshake before bedtime. Mr. Assange knows this which is why he fears to release their cable-right ?

Mr. Assange is not some old Mullah walking down the street in Some Italian city. His rendition would have been known immediately and by the whole world. The US is nothing if not secretive about its illegal activities. Why do you think the American government is so upset by Wikileaks in the first place? War crimes, assassinations, invasions, lies and more lies, drone attacks on civilians, black op activities in foreign lands inclusive of terrorist activities, total disregard for the laws of other countries, these are all signs of a pariah, rogue state and they all apply to one nation in particular. No wonder that nation wants to get its hands on him. How dare he show the gross hypocrisy of this parasitic nation to the world.

First, it suggests that only Latin American banana republics grant asylum in their embassies, which somehow makes this a discredited practice. This is blatantly inaccurate.

Second, it suggests that U.S. policy in particular is not to grant asylum to asylum-seekers who take refuge in U.S. embassies abroad, citing the case earlier this year when the U.S. handed back the Chinese dissident who sought refuge in the U.S. embassy in Beijing. However, the story neglects to mention that the U.S. not only granted asylum to Chinese dissident Fang Lizhi in its Beijing embassy after the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989, but after he remained in the U.S. embassy for a year, the U.S. arranged for his safe passage out of the country. The story also neglects to mention that the U.S. also granted asylum in 1956 to Hungarian Cardinal József Mindszenty in its Budapest embassy, where he remained there for 15 years until he was allowed to leave the country in 1971.

While this balatantly erroneous story is probably already published in print, editors at The Economist should withdraw this electronic version and require a competent journalist to research and rewrite it.

Don't be ridiculous. Re-read article 41. By both a) using the premises of the diplomatic mission in a manner incompatible with its purpose and b) interfering in the internal affairs of the host country, the Ecuadorian embassy has failed to comply with its end of the bargain. The Economist appears to understand this perfectly, as does the U.K. Whether or not that is grounds for a reciprocal discarding of the terms of the Convention is trickier issue; personally, I would be inclined to say that one cannot abuse a treaty and then expect its benefits.

Also, you misspelled "journalist." If you're going to correct the spelling of others (which you appear to believe invalidates their arguments) as a poor substitute for your own lack of a point to make, then at least ensure that you do not also make a mistake.

El_Patricio has come to your aid given you seem not to know the Vienna Convention. The issue here is how has Ecuador violated article 41? The Assange case on information is not an internal affair of Great Britain, nor are his "sexual offences in Sweeden". Perhaps the US problem with Assange has turned into an internal affair for the UK via the intelligence route. That is more what is sounds like. In that case I understand the terms of a discussion that began disowning the Vienna Convention and saying only Latin American Governments recognise diplomatic asylum.
I will go back to my work and leave this here. I am perfectly clear this discussion has been about "let's give our friends a hand" which I understand but has nothing to do with international law.

That is your comeback? I have read the Convention but if you feel more confident believing that I only knew about Section 41 because of another poster then so be it.

How could Ecuador have interfered in Britain's internal affairs? You do know that he was on bail when he absconded?

Sweden issued an arrest warrant for questioning but he was not charged with anything at that time. He was then served this arrest warrant in the UK and given bail. The extradition warrant was upheld on 24 February 2011 then appealed and again upheld on 2 November 2011 and then appealed again and again it was upheld on 30 May 2012.

So yes it is an internal affair of the UK.

You can twist and turn and try to argue semantics, but you cannot deny that he has broken his bail conditions. This has nothing to do with the US. There is no extradition request from the US though Assange fans would make you believe that for some reason he is easier to extradite from Sweden than the UK.

Neither the UK nor I disown the Vienna Convention, however the Convention does not confer permanent rights to an Embassy nor does it confer 'diplomatic asylum'. The UK can simply withdrawn diplomatic relations with Ecuador and then give enough grace period for all diplomatic staff to leave and then legally enter the 'former' embassy.

I will say it again. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. Sorry I had to emphasis this but as per usual people such as yourself keep claiming something that doesn't exist. Either you are the victim of a meme or just hope to create one.

18 members of the OAS agreed to a convention in Caracas in March 1954 of which 13 ratified it. Just because Ecuador is part of this Convention does not mean that the UK has a duty to do anything other than negotiate with Ecuador as it would with any country.

What I enjoy most is that the US doesn't have to actually do anything to disrupt Assange's life. When you think about it, Assange is effectively under house arrest and trapped in a small apartment. For all intents and purposes he has self imposed his own incarceration.

Assange has a God complex so will never be happy no matter what country he settles in. I sincerely hope he gets to Ecuador because I just can't wait to hear his excuse when Correa finally turns on him.

There is such a thing as diplomatic asylum in international law. What you are confused about is the difference between formal international law and customary international law. Diplomatic asylum was and has continued to be an important part of customary international law because countries appear to respect it, or at least act as if it's something to be considered. This is the concept of opinio juris sive necessitatis.
.
Customary international law is binding when arbitrated in international tribunals. In order to "opt-out" of customary international law, a country must consistently register its opposition and its government must act as if the custom does not apply. In the days before the law of the sea was fully codified, for example, the US would regularly sail its warships into other countries' claimed territorial waters because it wanted to register its opposition to these countries' unilateral extension of their territorial zones. If the US had respected them, it would have become bindingly subject to the claims under international law.
.
Here's a good article detailing how diplomatic asylum is a part of customary international law (related to the Chinese Cheng Guangcheng case):http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/30/gimme_shelter?page=0,0
.
I know it seems unbelievably fuzzy, especially when one comes from a country (such as the UK or the US) with a history of common law, but that's the way international law actually works.

Just because countries can bilaterally negotiate safe passage does not mean it exists as a legal concept. The UK is under no obligation to recognise his asylum nor grant him passage out. Your article actually backs this up.

Fudging? Look pal, all I'm trying to say is that it's a part of customary international law. Certain states routinely defy that custom to opt out, but as long as some follow it, it is a part of international law. Customary international law is law.

Whether the UK is under obligation to recognize asylum depends on whether the UK believes it is under obligation to recognize asylum (as I said before, opinio juris) and whether it has done so before in similar cases. I'm not familiar with the relevant case law on this so I can't comment on it.

The article I posted shows various instances in which nations have either followed or not followed the custom. In nations that historically respected diplomatic asylum it is binding as customary international law. Your assertion that there is "no such thing" is plain wrong, even if it may not apply to the UK.

You keep repeating the same falsehoods in the hope that suddenly they will be true.

I repeat:
THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNISING DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM.

You keep trying to merge two interrelated laws and saying that supports your conclusion.

There is no customary law, there is no codified law. None. There is a regional treaty amongst some Latin American states. The UK and the US have both stated they do not recognise diplomatic asylum.

Just because the UK recognises asylum rights and diplomatic immunity does not magically make diplomatic asylum a fact. Should the UK agree to let Julian Assange leave the UK, this will be done on a bilateral agreement with Ecuador. This does not create an international law. It is purely an agreement between two countries. it is their sovereign right to make agreements and interact with each other as they see fit within the confines of their own domestic laws and international obligations.

Just because Ecuador recognises Assange as an asylum seeker does not mean the UK must. It is also under no obligation to grant him passage out of the UK.

Sigh... look, I took a class in international law from Harvard. I'm pretty sure what they taught me about the existence of customary diplomatic right was correct.

If the UK has no history of diplomatic asylum then diplomatic asylum is not applicable in the UK. That's not the same thing as saying the right doesn't exist anywhere.

You seem to be continually confused by the idea of customary international law. International law does not need to be spelled out in treaties. Customary law is separate, extant, and fully respected by international jurists. It is defined by state behavior and state intention independent of treaties or formal agreement. It's like the implicit rules formed on a playground between kids who don't speak the same language.

If the UK has a history of taking diplomatic asylum seriously, then if someone decided to take the UK to the ECHR it would likely end up finding that the UK violated customary international law and would be subject to sanction. But if it does not have this history, then customary international law doesn't apply.

Again, let me repeat: I am making the case that the right to diplomatic asylum is respected by many countries, all over the world, mostly in the absence of formal treaties, and is thus a part of customary international law. This exists. That's a fact. But it may not in the UK! I don't know!

The mistake you are making is to believe that if the right to diplomatic asylum exists in customary international law, it must universally apply to all countries including the UK. It doesn't. That's not how international law works. I said it before and I'll say it again: if the UK hasn't acted as if the right existed before, then the customary international law is not binding on the UK.

Seriously, all I'm trying to rebut is your mistaken assertions about the existence of international law, not whether the UK has to do anything or not and you start going up in arms thinking that I'm defending Julian Assange...

Well, it seems that the English media are upset and loose some of their objectivity (and therefore quality).
No matter what you think of Assange, UK should not be thinking of making their own rule prevail on international regulations of diplomatic asylum.

Archie1954
Haha your second Cloudwarrior joke today.... on a role!
Are you sure it is my obfuscation that is wearing thin or is it your intelligence level?
You do know that another word for obfuscation is to becloud! Wow now you can make another lame joke about my name and still not make a valid point.

Gentlemen you are waisting your time unwinding this case. While many are amused with Assanges adventures, the reality here is one. Correas objective is to take advantage of whatever comes his way to address the evil empire (Usa and its allies).
He plays the mith of the defensor of those battled by the bad big guys. Here in Ecuador he thus wins votes and further support from the vast ingnorant and missled population that sees him as the their Robbin Hood. Period. This model is the same Chavez and others are using to manipulate democracy to hold them in power.